Skip to main content

About your Search

20120901
20120930
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
the universal service fund, you know, the america of the 1930s where you had to have something like a universal service fund to get telephone service into rural america is a totally different america than the america of today where almost everybody in the country has a cell phone or an iphone or an ipad, and we have multiple service providers in the wireless, you know, 3g and 4g networks. i see no real reason for the universal service fund as it was originally construed, and it's debatable if you need it at all. i understand those that represent rural districts that want to use universal service fund to get broadband into their areas. when the issue came up last time in the energy and commerce committee, then-congressman, now-senator roy blunt of missouri offered some amendments to require that we provide if you're going to do broadband universal service fund, that you provide it to unserved areas before you provide it to underserved areas. and that amendment was defeated. so to my mind, it does show a little bit of the hypocrisy of the concept. >> host: howard buskirk. >> host: usf, though, th
" with a look at technology and u.s. foreign policy, followed by past democratic convention speeches appeared first, john f. kennedy in 1960, followed by president lyndon johnson in 1964. >> this week on "the communicators," a discussion of foreign policy and technology. joining us is alec ross, the senior advisor for innovation at the state department. it would come just in an overall sense -- how does the state department use technology to further its goals? >> look, we live in a world where technology, networks are of increasing consequence in our foreign policy. it is increasingly the backbone for communications in commerce around the world. so for us, it is just a tool, but it is an important tool. we use it for communications. we have 288 facebook pages with 13 million fans. i think we have almost 200 official twitter accounts with a couple million followers. we are using it for communication, but of greater consequence in my opinion is part of what we are looking at our some really tough traditional foreign policy challenges -- are some really tough traditional foreign-policy challenge
and others. what responsibility does the state department and the u.s. government have to monitor and restrict the technologies? >> guest: that's great question. i think that as networking technologies become increasingly power and increasingly ambiguous the ability to oppress the people also grows. you can't take a utopian view of the internet and networking technologies. in fact, a government with malignant intent can bend these networks to infiltrate monitor and manipulate what's happening there. and to surveil the citizens. this is something that -- let me be blunt. it carries me i have a 5-year-old, 7-year-old, and 9-year-old. the world they you up is going to be different in terms of hypertransparency. we restrict the sale of technology which can be used to 0 prez people people in countries with sanction. there are export controls question help inform the licensing of certain products and services. but in your question, you made the right point. certain of the use of the technology are utterly benign. the same thing which can be used to inapt packet to determine whether peop
and last year come out about what is possible to cyber attacks than ever before. part of it is because u.s. companies have been targeted. some of it is because we suddenly have information about what the u.s. government is capable of doing. i do not think that is a complete coincidence. now that this knowledge is out there, it came at a time when there's pressure for cyber security legislation. we may hear of more cyber attacks that have been previously kept under wraps. we may now hear things like the stock exchange was hit or this company suffered an attack. >> and our laws. companies have two reports -- have to report cyber attacks in their sec filings. that may get something moving. >> one of the most interesting things in this story line is this divide between senators mccain and lieberman. they are the closest of friends. they are the three amigos, along with grant, especially on national-security issues. and yet, this is lieberman's batie, his biggest gold before he retires, and mccain is torpedoing it. they have had lots of discussions and lieberman reportedly exploded at mccain sa
of true universal service reform. including abolishing the universal service fund. in the 1930's, you had to have something like a universal service fund to get telephone service into rural america, that is a totally different america than the america today where almost everybody in the country has a cell phone or an iphone or nicad and we have multiple service providers in the -- or an ipad and we have multiple service providers in the network. i see no real reason for the universal service fund as it was originally construed. and it is debatable if you need it at all. i am understand those that represent rural districts that want to use universal service fund to get broadband into their areas. when the issue came up last time in the energy and commerce committee, then congressman now senator roy blunt of missouri offered some amendments to require that, if you will do broadband universal service fund, they provided to underserved areas and that amendment was defeated. to my mind, it does show a bit of the hypocrisy of the concept. >> the communications at those require the fcc to have t
attack than ever before. some of it because u.s. companies have been targeted, some of it because we suddenly have information about what the u.s. government is capable of doing. i personally don't think that's a complete coincidence. this knowledge came at a time when the pressure for cybersecurity legislation, we may hear more reports of the sorts of attacks that had been previously kept under wraps. now we're going to start maybe hearing, you know, this stock exchange was hit which was some of reports that were out there, or this company -- >> guest: well, under their laws, you know, companies have to report cyber attacks in their sec filings, so we definitely see more disclosures, and that may alarm, you know, members of the public and get something moving. >> guest: i think one of the most interesting sort of storylines in this is the divide between senators mccain and lieberman because they are, you know, the closest of friends, they're the three amigos along with graham especially on national security issues, and yet this is lieberman's baby here, this is his biggest goal befo
. the america of the 1930's where you had to have something like the fund to get the telephone service in rural america is different than the america today where almost everybody in the country has a cell phone or iphone or ipad and we have multiple service providers with the 3g and 4g networks and i see no reason for the fund as it was originally construed, and it's debatable if you need it at all faugh. they represent a rural district that want to use the service of broadband into their areas and when the issue came up last time in the committee of congress and now senator of missouri offered some amendments to require that we provide if you're going to do broadband universal service to underserved areas that amendment was defeated, so to my mind, it does show little bit of hypocrisy in the concept. >> the act does require them to have the usf. is that something you would favor changing ... all? >> i don't want to regurgitate. >> many of the universal service fund 70 years ago and they won the case then and may have been necessary. you have a tough time making that case today. if you choose t
research and some of these minority communities, 70% or 80s service through mobile applications. -- 80% service is through mobile applications. i am not a critic. we are in the business. no reason for me to be critical. my comment now is not a platform comment. it is more a device, and then it is a platform comment. if you're going to do mobil on a laptop and get real broadband speeds, i do not have any problem whatsoever. if you go into the educational context and you're talking bought mobile on a smart bomb and this access to minority communities, i do not view that as an acceptable substitute for a net book, a laptop, or desktop. atlanta a woman in whose son was in and the fans writing program. one of the right to the assignment was to edit a newspaper story. the way you did it was good to a home worksite. you loaded the newspaper article. he edited it and then up would be edited article to the site where the teacher would have access to it, could market up correctly and put it back on the site for you and your parents to see. this family did not have brought it in their home. she s
information about what the u.s. government is capable of doing. i personally don't think that's a complete coincidence. now that this knowledge is out there, it came at a time when the security legislation -- we may hear more reports of the sorts of attacks may have been previously kept under wraps. now we'll start hearing maybe the stock exchange was hit, or this company -- >> well, under the laws, companies have to report cyber attacks in their sec filings. so, we definitely may see more disclosure, and that may alarm members of the public and get something moving. >> i think one of the most interesting story lines is the divide between senators mccain and lieberman, because they're the closest of friends, the three amigos, and grant, especially on national security issues is where they almost always see eye-to-eye, and yet this is lieberman's baby here, his biggest goal before -- he retires and mccain is torpedoing it, and there were negotiations and leashman -- aides were saying he exploded at mccain, saying, how could you do this? how are you going to feel if a year from now there's a
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9